FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT – BRIAN BLATCHFORD BUILDING.
MARCH 2014.
INTRODUCTION.
Brian Blatchford building is located on the Frederick Road Campus and houses the
Directorate of Prosthetics and Orthotics. It is of brick construction and is two storeys high.
METHODOLOGY.
The fire risk assessment was undertaken using the framework outlined in the British
Standard PAS 79:2007. The process involved a visual inspection of all accessible areas
on a floor by floor basis to determine:
1. Potential sources of ignition.
2. Combustible materials.
3. Means of detection.
4. Means of escape.
5. Emergency lighting
6. Means of fighting fire.
7. Fire safety signage.
8. Procedures and training.
9. Structural features.
10. Hazardous areas.
11. Significant hazards requiring further control.
12. Risk level.
Relevant information was then identified on building plans and these are included as an
appendix. A summary assessment is also included as an appendix.
FINDINGS.
1. Potential sources of ignition
The potential sources of ignition identified in the building are:
 Electrical appliances, including computer equipment – in offices.
 Vending machines in common area.
 Arson, as the building has open access for students/visitors.
 3-phase machinery in workshops.
 Welding / brazing equipment and forge in PO-7.
 LEV system with filter house (system is maintained annually).
Electrical equipment is PAT tested in accordance with the University’s policy. Staff
kitchens are protected by heat detection and fire doors to prevent fire spread and give
early warning of fire without generating excessive false alarms.
2. Combustible materials
These are primarily:
 Paper files in offices.
 Waste paper bins and recycling bins in offices.
 Solvent based glues and paints in PO-4 and PO-7.
15/02/2016
1
FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT – BRIAN BLATCHFORD BUILDING.
MARCH 2014.


Prosthetic materials such as foam and plastics in workshops.
Dusts in LEV filter house – parts of the LEV system have not been comprehensively
serviced recently and could contain flammable dusts.
Housekeeping around the building was excellent however the notice boards and tables in
the common area on the ground floor were cluttered with posters and papers.
Solvents and paints are decanted into small paper cups for the students to use reducing
the amount in the workshop.
Stock of materials seemed to be at a reasonable level (i.e. not excessive amounts) and
stored suitably in the workshops and store.
The LEV system is on a maintenance contract and is inspected every six months.
3. Means of detection
The building has automatic detection in the form of smoke or heat (in kitchen / workshop
areas) detection as well as manually operated call points in accordance with BS5839 L4/M
part 1. These points are situated on escape routes or in higher risk areas such as plant
rooms and workshops.
4. Means of escape.
Whole Building.
The layout of the building is straightforward and travel distances quite short. There are 4
final exit doors, one off each of the 2 stairwells and the front and rear entrances. The first
floor is used primarily for office and lecture theatres. The stair capacities are as follows;
Each stairwell is 1300mm wide = 260 persons X 2 = 520.
Discounting one of these gives a capacity of 260 for the first floor.
Disabled visitors can access the first floor via the lift and a refuge point is located in the
lobby by the opposite stairwell. As the building runs a clinic for prosthetics and orthotics
there are times when the building has a relatively high number of mobility impaired
persons on the ground floor. This needs to be taken into consideration on the evacuation
plan.
5. Emergency Lighting.
The building is fitted with escape lighting which is designed to enable safe exit in the event
of a power failure. This is tested regularly by Estates as part of their PPM programme.
6. Means of fighting fire.
Extinguishers are provided on escape routes and in areas of higher risk and are
appropriate for their intended use. These are generally in pairs consisting of one water and
one carbon dioxide extinguisher. Fire extinguishers on corridors are located next to
15/02/2016
2
FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT – BRIAN BLATCHFORD BUILDING.
MARCH 2014.
manual call points to encourage people to raise the alarm before picking up an
extinguisher. Staff have been instructed not to use fire extinguishers unless their escape
route is blocked by fire.
7. Signage.
The building is fitted with comprehensive fire safety signage. These include fire exit,
extinguisher, fire-action and call point signs which are compliant with the Safety (Safety
Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996.
8. Fire Procedures.
In the event of the alarm sounding it will automatically relay to Maxwell control (security)
who in turn will initiate the University Call Challenge Procedure.
There is an evacuation plan in place for the building along with a designated building
controller and fire wardens.
9. Structural features.
There were no visible structural features that were of concern during the inspection.
10. Hazardous areas.
A solvent store cupboard is located in PO-4 and contains numerous solvent and solvent
based glues.
There is an electrical substation at the rear of the building which is accessed externally.
A brazing hearth is located in the rear of PO-07. This is only used occasionally and only by
the technicians.
11. Significant hazards requiring further control.
General Items Identified
Action required
See review record for minor actions
Actioned by
12. Risk level.
The following assessment of risk is based on the building after completion of additional
controls.
Likelihood
of Fire
X

2
15/02/2016
Severity
=

X
2
3
Risk Level

=
4
FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT – BRIAN BLATCHFORD BUILDING.
MARCH 2014.
Control measures to manage the fire risk in Brian Blatchford Building are quantified as:
Acceptable.
The following scoring system is used to determine the overall level of fire risk for the building being assessed.
Increasing Consequence
Risk Rating:
5
10
15
20
25
4
8
12
16
20
3
6
9
12
15
2
4
6
8
10
1
2
3
4
5
17-25 Unacceptable – Stop activity and make
immediate improvements/seek further advice
10-16 Tolerable – look to improve within
specified timescale
5-9 Adequate – Look to improve at next
review
1-4 Acceptable - No further action, but ensure
controls are maintained
Increasing Likelihood
Guide to using the risk rating table:
Consequences
1 Insignificant – no impact
2 Minor – minor interruption to activity/process
3 Moderate – some damage to property/business interruption
4 Major – significant internal damage to property
5 Catastrophic –major disaster e.g. loss of life/loss of a
building/impact on surrounding areas
Likelihood
1 Very unlikely – 1 in a million chance of it happening
2 Unlikely – 1 in 100,000 chance of it happening
3 Fairly likely – 1 in 10,000 chance of it happening
4 Likely – 1 in 1,000 chance of it happening
5 Very likely – 1 in 100 chance of it happening
15/02/2016
4